Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian-identified (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged into Lesbian and redirected by Clay Collier. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian-identified[edit]

Previous discussion had a pretty much overwhelming decision to merge, though there doesn't seem to be enough material to do much with in the mergeto article. Or not enough interest. Delete SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous discussion had 5 to merge and 3 to keep. There were 3 comments; loosely described, they were one in favor of merging, one in favor of keeping, and one which queried the choice which said "expressions like 'female-identified' and 'woman-identified' are reasonably common and established within the fields of gender studies". While the statement obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual identification, this confusion does establish a clear need for informative articles on this subject. Anarchangel (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - useful info that doesn't need to have its own article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems like a lot of the content would be more appropriate for Transgender. Not to re open the merge debate, but as I set about to do the work, that's what occurs to me. Scarykitty (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close / merge. Last discussion was only a month ago. I see no reason to believe consensus has changed in the meantime. Give it time for consensus to settle down over whether this should be merged or not, and give editors on the articles in question time to perform the merge. JulesH (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I may have not understood, but the text on the closing from the last AfD says "If the merger is not completed promptly, this article might be re-nominated for deletion." Is a month not "promptly"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the previous Merge consensus. This reads more like an unreferenced essay from a lesbian apologist than it does by anyone with any understanding, or study. It's not a social academic topic, and reads as times as a pretty childish list of high school definitions of quasi-metrosexual concepts. Otherwise, get it merged already. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is not only scientific discussion of this topic, but it is so long established that discussion in the field is moving onward. Social sciences are not only informed by Lesbian-identified as a common social terminology, and therefore assume that Lesbian identification is valid, but are proposing refinements of the terminology. Moreover, as in so many AfD, current material is used as evidence that the article subject itself is deficient. The problem is that editors can't or won't search scientific sources. That doesn't make the topic non-notable, and it certainly doesn't make it unverifiable. Even my casual search found this evidence of sexual identification as a topic of scientific inquiry. Anarchangel (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Proxy User (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Lesbian. --Alynna (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing about this that indicates it is notable as a distinct term, and in any case any content here is redundant to lesbian. No redirect needed because nobody is going to search under this term. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close I went ahead and merged what I felt to be the relevant material from the article into the Lesbian article and redirected to the same. There wasn't much; the history is still there if someone thinks that I missed something significant. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.